Posted on Nov 24, 2015
What are the Core Reasons the United States has been able to Sustain Great Relations with France this Long?
9.92K
29
20
0
0
0
Why does the Love for France run so Deep?
France
Foreign Policy
Allies
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 6
4
4
0
I am not sure that it does. Don't get me wrong I think we see people all over the world and feel for terrible things that happen to them. I also think that it is easy to put an image of a flag behind your Facebook profile. But when it comes time to spill American blood on foreign soil many Americans will remember France's "support" of US policy in the past. After all Freedom Fries wasn't that long ago.
(4)
(0)
2
2
0
SPC Andrew Griffin - First, in full disclosure, I am not unbiased in my opinions about France, as my mother was born and raised in Paris and I lived there for 14 years of my life, when my dad was assigned there at USAREUR HQ, as the Army and Defense attaché at the US Embassy, and with the American Battle Monuments Commission. It is my second home...
France and the United States have always had a special bond, going back to the Revolutionary War. We would not have won our independence from England had it not been for the help of France. We certainly paid that debt back during WWI and WWII, but our friendship has endured.
The older French people love the United States and have not forgotten what we did for their country during the World Wars. The younger generation in France, like the younger generation in the USA, have a different outlook and don't really care for tradition and history. As such, France and the USA are not nearly the allies they used to be. France has a misguided superiority complex that manifested itself when they decided to withdraw from NATO in 1966 (but rejoined in 2009 or so).
The Socialist government of France also strained relations with the USA. Now, the USA is getting to be more and more Socialist under the Obama Administration.
The USA does not look at France as an adversary and, in the overall scheme of things, I believe the relationship is strong. Having said that, because of Obama's reluctance to take a stand and support France (and the world) in a meaningful way to combat ISIS, relations with this ally may deteriorate, as the rest of our foreign relations with our allies have due to Obama's policies.
Do we have "great relations" with France? I think not. We are allies, but I would not call the relationship "great". Will our relations continue to endure? Yes, as long as we do not turn our back on them, like we are actually doing now in their time of need for our support.
France and the United States have always had a special bond, going back to the Revolutionary War. We would not have won our independence from England had it not been for the help of France. We certainly paid that debt back during WWI and WWII, but our friendship has endured.
The older French people love the United States and have not forgotten what we did for their country during the World Wars. The younger generation in France, like the younger generation in the USA, have a different outlook and don't really care for tradition and history. As such, France and the USA are not nearly the allies they used to be. France has a misguided superiority complex that manifested itself when they decided to withdraw from NATO in 1966 (but rejoined in 2009 or so).
The Socialist government of France also strained relations with the USA. Now, the USA is getting to be more and more Socialist under the Obama Administration.
The USA does not look at France as an adversary and, in the overall scheme of things, I believe the relationship is strong. Having said that, because of Obama's reluctance to take a stand and support France (and the world) in a meaningful way to combat ISIS, relations with this ally may deteriorate, as the rest of our foreign relations with our allies have due to Obama's policies.
Do we have "great relations" with France? I think not. We are allies, but I would not call the relationship "great". Will our relations continue to endure? Yes, as long as we do not turn our back on them, like we are actually doing now in their time of need for our support.
(2)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
SPC Andrew Griffin - Thank you.
As an example of the difference in the "generational think" I alluded to in my response, I want to provide an actual incident I was involved in several years ago that demonstrates it. While the example happened in Germany, it nonetheless demonstrates the point I was trying to make.
When I was the Deputy Provost Marshal, US Army Europe, and the person responsible for the US Military Customs Program and coordination with German Customs officials, I worked very closely with the head of German Customs on a wide range of issues. Although we had agreed to the US having blanket authority to approve certain exceptions to German customs laws for service members and families assigned in Germany (and, in some cases, visiting Germany), as well as US Government employees in Germany, there were quite a few situations that arose that fell out of the blanket authority we had and that required us to go to German Customs for approval. Most of these issues were handled between personnel assigned to my Customs staff and lower-level German Customs officials and, for the most part, the US received whatever we requested (and we did not abuse that relationship with frivolous requests). However, every once in awhile, an issue would come up that we thought important enough for me to discuss personally with the head of German Customs and I do not recall one single incident where he did not approve whatever I had requested.
I visited the German Customs office one day and met with the head of Customs in his office. He was an older gentleman who had lived through WWII as a child. His office overlooked the US Embassy and, during our discussion, he asked me to come and look out his window with him. As we peered on the US flag, flying in front of the embassy, he stated that, more times than I knew, his staff had recommended disapproval of our requests for exceptions to the German customs laws. It was his policy that all such recommendations had to come to him for approval. He stated that, when he got one of those recommendations for disapproval of a US request, he would carefully consider it and, more times than not, would get up and walk to his window and gaze at the American flag and think about the outstanding relationship that had been forged between the US and Germany after such a terrible situation in the World Wars. He stated that it was his belief that the US had saved Germany, not destroyed it, but that the "younger generations" had no concept about history and the special bond between the US and Germany. And, as he gazed upon the flag of the United States, he approved our request.
That kind of thinking forged the bond between the US and France, as well.
As an example of the difference in the "generational think" I alluded to in my response, I want to provide an actual incident I was involved in several years ago that demonstrates it. While the example happened in Germany, it nonetheless demonstrates the point I was trying to make.
When I was the Deputy Provost Marshal, US Army Europe, and the person responsible for the US Military Customs Program and coordination with German Customs officials, I worked very closely with the head of German Customs on a wide range of issues. Although we had agreed to the US having blanket authority to approve certain exceptions to German customs laws for service members and families assigned in Germany (and, in some cases, visiting Germany), as well as US Government employees in Germany, there were quite a few situations that arose that fell out of the blanket authority we had and that required us to go to German Customs for approval. Most of these issues were handled between personnel assigned to my Customs staff and lower-level German Customs officials and, for the most part, the US received whatever we requested (and we did not abuse that relationship with frivolous requests). However, every once in awhile, an issue would come up that we thought important enough for me to discuss personally with the head of German Customs and I do not recall one single incident where he did not approve whatever I had requested.
I visited the German Customs office one day and met with the head of Customs in his office. He was an older gentleman who had lived through WWII as a child. His office overlooked the US Embassy and, during our discussion, he asked me to come and look out his window with him. As we peered on the US flag, flying in front of the embassy, he stated that, more times than I knew, his staff had recommended disapproval of our requests for exceptions to the German customs laws. It was his policy that all such recommendations had to come to him for approval. He stated that, when he got one of those recommendations for disapproval of a US request, he would carefully consider it and, more times than not, would get up and walk to his window and gaze at the American flag and think about the outstanding relationship that had been forged between the US and Germany after such a terrible situation in the World Wars. He stated that it was his belief that the US had saved Germany, not destroyed it, but that the "younger generations" had no concept about history and the special bond between the US and Germany. And, as he gazed upon the flag of the United States, he approved our request.
That kind of thinking forged the bond between the US and France, as well.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
SGT David T.
PO1 Todd Cousins - I'm pretty sure they fought along side our forces too (Free French Forces, and the resistance).
(2)
(0)
PO1 Todd Cousins
SGT David T. - They absolutely did. They also fought against us in Africa and Europe. The Vichy French of WW2.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
I don't know of any other Country that went Broke, Busted, Bankrupt funding our Revolution. While I think most of our Ancestors are from UK seconded by Germany I think 3rd would be French, I know my Ancestors came from all 3 countries. As a Child I was exposed to the French Language along with German. Thomas Paine left the US to go to France because he wanted to take the "Revolution" to the next level. Yeah we will always feel a Kinship with France.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
We have a great degree of tolerance for their abuse and back-stabbing. It is a case of mind over matter - if we don't mind it doesn't matter.
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
SSG John Thornton,
"The real scandal contained in the long-awaited report of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) that was published last week concerns the fecklessness of the United Nations, not to mention the treacherous conduct of some of its security council members, in its dealings with Saddam's regime between the end of the 1991 Gulf war and last year's Operation Iraqi Freedom.
In the diplomatic build-up to last year's war to remove Saddam Hussein from power, the two most vociferous opponents of military action were Russia and France.
At the time it was felt that their main motivation was to protect their lucrative trade ties with Baghdad. In late 2002, Saddam still owed the Russians some $10 billion, mainly for illegal arms deals. France came next in the trade rankings.
Thanks to the efforts of the ISG team, we now know that there was another, even less palatable, explanation for their duplicity. Far from seeking to protect their lucrative trade ties, the real explanation for the opposition of France and Russia to the war was that both countries' political establishments were deeply implicated in a lucrative scam to divert the profits of the UN's oil-for-food programme into their own private coffers.
But as the ISG report clearly demonstrates, Saddam skilfully worked the system so that the profits were diverted to fund his regime rather than feed his people. An important element of this fraud was that a significant percentage of the funds was diverted to set up a voucher system that could be used to bribe a wide network of international politicians who could be counted upon to do Saddam's bidding.
Between them, France and Russia received 45 per cent of the vouchers, with China coming third. In late 2002 and early 2003, France, Russia and China led the anti-war movement at the UN. In France, the vouchers were given to a number of politicians with close links to Mr Chirac, while in Russia they were paid directly to Mr Putin's private office, providing him with his own ready-made slush fund.
Saddam's clever manipulation of the voucher system was a brilliant success: it not only caused a deep split within the security council, it helped him to make irrelevant the much-vaunted policy of containment that was supposed to prevent him from re-emerging as a dominant force in the Middle East. It also enabled him to fund illicit imports of weapons and the technology needed to resume production of weapons of mass destruction, which was his declared aim once the sanctions had been lifted."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3611836/The-sordid-truth-about-the-oil-for-food-scandal.html
"The real scandal contained in the long-awaited report of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) that was published last week concerns the fecklessness of the United Nations, not to mention the treacherous conduct of some of its security council members, in its dealings with Saddam's regime between the end of the 1991 Gulf war and last year's Operation Iraqi Freedom.
In the diplomatic build-up to last year's war to remove Saddam Hussein from power, the two most vociferous opponents of military action were Russia and France.
At the time it was felt that their main motivation was to protect their lucrative trade ties with Baghdad. In late 2002, Saddam still owed the Russians some $10 billion, mainly for illegal arms deals. France came next in the trade rankings.
Thanks to the efforts of the ISG team, we now know that there was another, even less palatable, explanation for their duplicity. Far from seeking to protect their lucrative trade ties, the real explanation for the opposition of France and Russia to the war was that both countries' political establishments were deeply implicated in a lucrative scam to divert the profits of the UN's oil-for-food programme into their own private coffers.
But as the ISG report clearly demonstrates, Saddam skilfully worked the system so that the profits were diverted to fund his regime rather than feed his people. An important element of this fraud was that a significant percentage of the funds was diverted to set up a voucher system that could be used to bribe a wide network of international politicians who could be counted upon to do Saddam's bidding.
Between them, France and Russia received 45 per cent of the vouchers, with China coming third. In late 2002 and early 2003, France, Russia and China led the anti-war movement at the UN. In France, the vouchers were given to a number of politicians with close links to Mr Chirac, while in Russia they were paid directly to Mr Putin's private office, providing him with his own ready-made slush fund.
Saddam's clever manipulation of the voucher system was a brilliant success: it not only caused a deep split within the security council, it helped him to make irrelevant the much-vaunted policy of containment that was supposed to prevent him from re-emerging as a dominant force in the Middle East. It also enabled him to fund illicit imports of weapons and the technology needed to resume production of weapons of mass destruction, which was his declared aim once the sanctions had been lifted."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3611836/The-sordid-truth-about-the-oil-for-food-scandal.html
The sordid truth about the oil-for-food scandal
The UN's claim to a moral high ground is now in tatters, writes Con Coughlin
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
SSG John Thornton, they were clearly not on our side when the chips were down. They have a long history of such actions going back at least to WWII.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google